Summary
upholding a warrant to search defendant's residence for child pornography after defendant sent an undercover agent a single email with an attached image depicting a female who appeared to be, and according to defendant was, a minor
Summary of this case from U.S. v. DietzOpinion
Criminal No. 05-0383.
May 2, 2006
Memorandum and Order of Court
Defendant moves for suppression of his computer from his residence and any evidence seized from the computer, such as pornographic images and e-mail correspondence with the undercover agent posing as a 15 year old female on the grounds that there was no probable cause set forth in the warrant or the supporting affidavit, that the warrant was overbroad and that the evidence is not admissible under the "good faith" (United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984)) exception to the warrant requirement.
Neither of which were attached to the motion to suppress. The Court's decision that there was probable cause to support the warrant is based on the undisputed facts as recounted by the parties, giving all reasonable inferences to defendant.
After careful consideration of defendant's motion (Document No. 19) and the government's response thereto (Document No. 21), the Court finds that, considering the totality of the circumstances,Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 236 (1983), United States Postal Inspector Thomas Clinton, the affiant, stated probable cause to search and seize his computer for pornographic images of minors, since defendant had solicited by e-mail and chat room an undercover agent he believed was a 15 year old girl, "amybell15," sent her an image of a female who appeared to be a minor, and told "amybell15" that the image depicted a girl of "similar age" as her. If the affidavit did not state probable cause, it was certainly close enough to make the Magistrate Judge's probable cause determination reasonable, and, therefore, to make Inspector Clinton's reliance on the warrant objectively reasonable and in good faith, and admissible under Leon.
The government states that the search and seizure of June 3, 2005, was made pursuant to consent voluntarily given by defendant's wife. Consent would, of course, provide another justification excusing the need for a valid search warrant, but the Court could not make a factual determination of consent without an evidentiary hearing and consideration of Georgia v. Randolph, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 1515 (2006) (warrantless search of shared dwelling pursuant to wife's consent unreasonable as to husband defendant who had expressly refused to consent).
For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion to suppress (Document No. 19) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.